Gender superiority is much more complex than it may seem at first in the tale. The tale is full of rhetorical language that define the controversial division between the sexes. The first superiority was that men was in control, and had spiritual and intellectual dominance over women. Women were taught to obey subserviently as result of their hierarchical inferiority. A woman like May who was of “smal degree” could improve her economic position by selling her sexuality in marriage, which could be an explanation as to why she married him. Chaucer creates the tale so that it holds up a mirror to society in order for them to recognise their foolishness. The Merchant on the other hand tells the tale for simple entertainment of rowdy, misogynistic
…show more content…
The intrusion broadens the whole theme of the not-so-monogamous marriage relationship between January and May; it also adds to the fabliaux plot of the tale. Chaucer introduces the couple into the tale by reiterating the conditions of their "marriage": “Pluto, that is kyng of Fayerye, Folwynge his wyf, the queene Proserpyna”. The scene quickly escalates to Pluto’s misogynistic attack on all women where he quotes the Bible: “A monges a thousand men yet foond I oon, But of wommen alle foond I noon”. However, Pluto is quick to sympathizes with the old January and decides to “graunten, ... / That he shal have ayen his eyen sight," because "His owene man shal make hym cokewold". Chaucer puts emphasis on January’s ignorance, he is not just cuckolded, but cuckolded by a man from within his own household, by his own subservient “squire”. Despite knowing that January will be cuckolded and duped by May, Pluto stays true to his words and grants January his sight. He also loses the argument as Proserpine adds a lie to the already deadly sin of Lechery committed by May. However, May’s lie not only is a sin against her husband, but against God as well which taints Poserpine’s victory as she merely justifies a lie to cover up an adulterous affair. Arguably, January wins because he May back so the society won’t ridicule this “worthy knight”; he would also be granted with an heir as this …show more content…
This was certainly unusual for both literature and society at the time. In a time where women were primarily resigned to convents or housework- a women independent like the Wife of Bath who would point out her discomforts would have been very rare at the time. However, I do not think that Chaucer was a feminist, he was a product of his time, although I do not think that he was aggressively anti-marital like some of his characters for example the Merchant. He simply wanted to represent the diversity of characters which he named ‘The Canterbury Tales’. This suggests that Chaucer was simply a humanist and not a feminist. Additionally, critics have argued that Justinus in fact represents Chaucer’s own view. Chaucer has created a narrative voice through Justinus to accentuate the ridiculous nature of January’s perspective on marriage comparing it to Justinus’. He is logical, and reasonable, he doesn’t take the aggressively anti-marital and misogynistic approaches of the
The intrusion broadens the whole theme of the not-so-monogamous marriage relationship between January and May; it also adds to the fabliaux plot of the tale. Chaucer introduces the couple into the tale by reiterating the conditions of their "marriage": “Pluto, that is kyng of Fayerye, Folwynge his wyf, the queene Proserpyna”. The scene quickly escalates to Pluto’s misogynistic attack on all women where he quotes the Bible: “A monges a thousand men yet foond I oon, But of wommen alle foond I noon”. However, Pluto is quick to sympathizes with the old January and decides to “graunten, ... / That he shal have ayen his eyen sight," because "His owene man shal make hym cokewold". Chaucer puts emphasis on January’s ignorance, he is not just cuckolded, but cuckolded by a man from within his own household, by his own subservient “squire”. Despite knowing that January will be cuckolded and duped by May, Pluto stays true to his words and grants January his sight. He also loses the argument as Proserpine adds a lie to the already deadly sin of Lechery committed by May. However, May’s lie not only is a sin against her husband, but against God as well which taints Poserpine’s victory as she merely justifies a lie to cover up an adulterous affair. Arguably, January wins because he May back so the society won’t ridicule this “worthy knight”; he would also be granted with an heir as this …show more content…
This was certainly unusual for both literature and society at the time. In a time where women were primarily resigned to convents or housework- a women independent like the Wife of Bath who would point out her discomforts would have been very rare at the time. However, I do not think that Chaucer was a feminist, he was a product of his time, although I do not think that he was aggressively anti-marital like some of his characters for example the Merchant. He simply wanted to represent the diversity of characters which he named ‘The Canterbury Tales’. This suggests that Chaucer was simply a humanist and not a feminist. Additionally, critics have argued that Justinus in fact represents Chaucer’s own view. Chaucer has created a narrative voice through Justinus to accentuate the ridiculous nature of January’s perspective on marriage comparing it to Justinus’. He is logical, and reasonable, he doesn’t take the aggressively anti-marital and misogynistic approaches of the